9/11 Forensic evidence to be reviewed on the History Channel, right now. nt

[patrice]

[nebenaube]

1. you mean the revisionist history channel....

give me a break.

[Hissyspit]

7. You mean the right-wing propaganda channel...

'revisionist' is too easy on them

[Rhiannon12866]

2. Got it on. Thanks!

Seems more like a history, to me, but they're sure to cover 9/11. And we'll see how "fair and balanced" they are. I saw "Loose Change" a couple of weeks ago. I was expecting a total conspiracy theory bias, but what they mostly did was raise important questions that have still never been answered...

[TheWraith]

5. Don't give "Loose Change" too much credit. Most of what they present is false.

They deliberately remove a lot of context and outright falsify claims in order to create "questions." It's one of the most classic spin tactics: you can't be accused of pushing a conclusion if you just provide a hugely biased "question."

[Rhiannon12866]

6. Well, the guy who made the film was there and I was pretty impressed with him.

He stayed afterwards and took dozens of questions. He raised more questions than he gave answers. I guess I was relieved because I expected something much different. And what I saw is supposedly the final cut. I haven't seen the previous versions, but we were told that it had evolved quite a bit...

[TheWraith]

9. Here's a good site for covering the various fictions of Loose Change.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com /

They also have an annotated version of the video linked from there, and a wide variety of other stuff, such as when the Loose Change guys went to Ground Zero and started getting in fights with people who lost family in the towers and the planes, accusing them of being in on the conspiracy.

[balantz]

3. If you want to go deeper down that rabbit hole, check this link out:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=FAFFDE39F342242...

Usually someone comes along pretty quick here and elsewhere to try and discredit the above work. One has to investigate for oneself because the truth is so very much covered up. Watch this with an open mind and consider that things may not be anything like the official story.

[Cheap_Trick]

4. Hard to believe that there are some here who buy the Bush fairy tale about 9/11

hook, line, and sinker.

[dlaliberte]

13. Most have sold out

I also find it hard to believe anyone would actively speak up in defense of the official lies unless they were willing participants. Maybe a few of the defendants really believe the lies, and just like to be argumentative. They should try to be honest with themselves and realize that they don't really know what they are talking about and they are merely trusting the authority of others rather than finding out for themselves. Most of the people who have passively accepted the lies are basically asleep, and thus not very active. They are not reading this message.

So most of those who are actively defending the lies are aware of what they are doing. They are fully aware that they are trying to spread more lies and confusion where the facts threaten to stand out too clearly. They have very little regard for the truth, and are merely defending their greedy complicit lifestyle. A few might believe there is a higher goal that makes the lies worthwhile - the ends justify the means to them. They may believe that the trusting, sleeping masses who were so easily fooled by the lies, the sheeple, deserve more of the same. I don't know what other nonsense they believe to justify their actions, but they also need to wake up to acknowledge the criminality of what they are doing, and that more and more of us know what they are doing.

Yes, it is that bad.

[LARED]

8. No one has to discredit the work done on no plane theories

It's self evident

[defendandprotect]

12. Yes... that's why a CNN reporter throws his career away reporting "No Plane" ...

whatsoever at Pentagon --!!

Reporter was delighted to be telling America the truth --

Til he got back to the office and found out "truth" wasn't on the agenda --

And he was set up for a denial of all he reported on the scene ...

because ...???

He was delusional as we can all see from the film --!!!


Meanwhile, one of the airlines reported on alleged hijacked plane that they

had no such flight scheduled for that day ...

[dlaliberte]

14. Not much is self-evident - wrong planes, not no planes

I don't buy the no-planes theory mostly because the videos we have of the planes show the wrong planes. Why would they go to the trouble of faking the planes and then use the wrong planes?

Was Extra Equipment Attached To Flight 175? (The plane that struck the south Twin Tower on 9/11)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=huK0MAb0Xa4

Flight 175. Too Hot to Handle - The Photo that Shook Spain
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175 /

The videos show military style planes with extra equipment, a tubular structure along the right side of the fuselage, and a flash is visible in the front immediately *before* impact, and to the right of where the nose would hit.

911 Truth a flash before the plane hits the WTC buildings
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ev2qYxWI38Q

[Bolo Boffin]

15. OMG! A honest-to-God Pod Advocate!

I thought you guys were extinct.

Missile pods? Really?

[dlaliberte]

16. OMG! An honest-to-God Obfuscator

I know you guys have trouble with facts. Everyone else, please watch the videos. Find out for yourself.

An incendiary device would be useful to ensure that the fuel in the plane ignited fully, which doesn't always happen when there is a collision. They needed to convince the public that it was fire that caused the collapse, but that kinda backfired when the fire was going out and firemen reached the impact site and reported there was not much fire left to put out. And then, guess what happened seconds later. The tower collapsed. Do you wonder why?

9/11 New York Fire Department
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qoR0yCMvtT8

[Bolo Boffin]

17. "firemen reached the impact site and reported there was not much fire left to put out"

Factual inaccuracy. I know, someone who thinks there was some kind of pod on the plane, where to start on the factual inaccuracy, right? But firefighters did not reach the impact site. The statement you are referring to was a firefighter several floors below the impact site. He was on a single floor describing its state. It is fallacious to use that single description of one part of one floor as describing all of the South Tower.

[dlaliberte]

24. not much fire regardless

Fires and explosions on several lower floors should suspicious enough. But the firemen did reach the impact floors. The impact at the south tower was floors 78-84.

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/05/264927.shtml
"Lost Voices of Firefighters, Some on 78th Floor"
by The New York Times, August 4, 2002
By JIM DWYER and FORD FESSENDEN

"Although most elevators were knocked out of service, Chief Palmer found one that
was working and took it to the 41st floor. At that point, he was halfway to the
impact zone, which ran from the 78th to the 84th floors.

As he began climbing, he crossed paths with a handful of injured people who had
been in the 78th floor Sky Lobby, where scores of office workers had been waiting
for express elevators when the second plane hit. The tip of its left wing grazed the
lobby, instantly killing most of a group variously estimated between 50 and 200
people. Only a dozen ultimately escaped from the building. "
...

"Chief Palmer also found an obstruction in the stairway and told the trailing fire companies how to get around it. He asked the chiefs below him to find an elevator that reached the 76th floor, those who heard the tape said.

Throughout, the voices of Chief Palmer, Chief Geraghty, and the other firefighters showed no panic, no sense that events were racing beyond their control.

When Chief Palmer radioed from the 78th floor, he sounded slightly out of breath, perhaps from exertion or perhaps from the sight of all the people who moments before had been waiting for an elevator and now were dead or close to it.

"Numerous 10-45's, Code Ones," Chief Palmer said, using the Fire Department's radio terms for dead people.

At that point, the building would be standing for just a few more minutes, as the fire was weakening the structure on the floors above him. Even so, Chief Palmer could see only two pockets of fire, and called for a pair of engine companies to fight them."

----

Here is a substantive debunking regarding the 78th floor and the radio report.

http://www.debunking911.com/fire.htm

"The 78th floor was a sky lobby which didn’t have much office furniture to catch fire. If there were two small fires on the 78th floor where just a wing tip entered, what must the 81st floor be like where the nose of the aircraft hit?"


But here is another description of what happened on that floor when the plane impacted, not mentioned by the debunker:

http://cnparm.home.texas.net/911/911/911.htm

"There are probably well over a hundred people milling around the elevators at the 78th floor sky lobby when a violent explosion blasts through, shattering the walls and the elevators, hurling fragments of glass and debris, and engulfing the large room in searing heat and smoke. Most of those present are killed instantly; there are perhaps two or three dozen people left alive in the ruins of the lobby, many of them horribly injured, with another 18 sealed in an elevator. "

So did the left wing tip do all that damage? How much of the floor between 78 and 79 was damaged? In any case, if over half of the fuel from the plane was unburned after the impact, wouldn't it drain down to floor 78 and ignite with those small fires? Supposedly fire spread up from there, but mostly we see black smoke, which implies an oxygen-starved, low temperature fire.

I'll admit that the radio report of only two small fires on floor 78 is inconclusive about the extent of the fires on upper floors. But we don't see anything more than a fabricated speculation for how the smoldering fires could have done what was claimed.

The damage was asymmetrical. At best (or worst, depending on your perspective), the upper 30 floors should have continued tipping over and fallen off, rather than, in its weakened state, somehow crushing the minimally damaged lower 80 floors in little more than free-fall time.

You might counter with the "it wasn't free-fall" line, but even twice free-fall time is not nearly enough. Four times free-fall time might do it, but only if the steel structure on each floor, designed to hold up 5 times the mass of *ALL* floors above it, gave way immediately as if it could hold only exactly 1 times the mass. The mass of the floors themselves resist falling immediately because of momentum, and lower floors are increasingly massive.

But it would not have collapsed at all. Not at all, let alone in whatever time you want to specify. Even if there was enough damage to start an asymmetrical collapse of a few floors.

And for tons of other reason as well, 9/11 was an inside job.

[dlaliberte]

26. basic physics

Allow me to correct a late-night misstatement. Here's what I said:

"You might counter with the "it wasn't free-fall" line, but even twice free-fall time is not nearly enough. Four times free-fall time might do it, but only if the steel structure on each floor, designed to hold up 5 times the mass of *ALL* floors above it, gave way immediately as if it could hold only exactly 1 times the mass. The mass of the floors themselves resist falling immediately because of momentum, and lower floors are increasingly massive."

I hope you caught the error also. I said "mass" when I should have said "weight" regarding the strength of the steel structure holding up the floors. Mass is a constant regardless of gravity. Weight is the force on a mass due to gravity. The last statement is slightly skewed: the mass (not the weight) of the floors resists falling, or moving at all. This involves inertia (the resistance to change of motion) and momentum (proportional to the mass and the velocity). Basic physics.

And in case you want to jump on the static vs dynamic load (aka dead vs live load), yes, the strength of the floor structure under dynamic load is less than for static load. If you are happy accepting that the floor structure could hold up 3 times the weight of *ALL* floors above, then I'll take it. The towers would not have collapsed at all, let alone anywhere near free-fall time.

[Bolo Boffin]

28. The falling mass of the upper section would have imparted SEVEN times the normal load capacity

of the floors.

Bye-bye, towers.

Check out Bazant-Zu.

[dlaliberte]

31. Bazant completely blows it

Where did "SEVEN" come from? You state it as fact. Give me your assumptions, and I can respond with calculations. How far did the upper section fall with how much resistance to create that much load?

How many times have people debunked Bazant for you? Are you allowed to read any of the material people refer you to?

Since he published his first paper on the subject 48 hours after Sept 11, he must be either brilliant, or fraudulent. You might choose the latter after reading this:

Bazant Completely Blows It
http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2008/03/bazant-completely-...

"Bazant, along with co-author Frank Greening, have published the only model of a gravity-driven twin tower collapse. NIST bypassed the subject entirely, studying only the events leading up to "collapse"."

"Bazant admitted that "100%" of the debris ejected from the towers could go outside the footprints, and that, according to his mathematical model, "collapse" would still continue. This is patently absurd, because if 100% of the mass went outside the footprint, 0% would be left to push down on the intact structure below."

NIST, by the way, admits they have no explanation for the gravitational near-free-fall collapse. They don't even try to explain it.

---

NIST AND DR. BAZANT- A SIMULTANEOUS FAILURE
Journal of 9/11 Studies, 39 May 2007
http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:hCYzhJIQJxwJ:www.jo...

"The NIST enquiry into the destruction of the WTC towers purported to be an examination
of the physical evidence. The final report includes commentary upon much of the
physical evidence available from this examination but concentrates upon the time period
prior to the onset of the collapse. The report does not go into much detail of the period of
the collapse itself but instead relies upon the theoretical work of Dr. Bazant, to argue that
once collapse was initiated then total collapse was inevitable."

"However this work is fundamentally flawed in two key areas. Examination of these
errors, either separately or together, reverses the conclusions reached by Dr. Bazant that
the collapse would continue to progress to ground level."

----

But folks, pay attention for one moment. It is very easy to understand that near-free-fall collapse of the towers makes no sense at all. If you drop the top 15 floors with nothing but air below them, it will take about 10 seconds to hit the ground. How long should it take for those same 15 floors to fall *THROUGH* the other 95 floors, crushing them all the way to the ground? Answer: they won't make it.

[Bolo Boffin]

32. You are not quoting Ace Baker.

I'm using a respected professor of structural engineering who's published scads of peer-reviewed papers, including the one I cited.

You're using a musician who advocates TV fakery.

The 7 comes from the Bazant paper. We really are done here but the shouting.

[dlaliberte]

34. I'll quote Hitler when he makes sense

So your response is we should all trust one guy and not trust another guy regardless what they say, just based on reputation? I don't want you to believe me or anyone else without question. You do.

I'm not shouting. I am flabbergasted. I am disappointed. Either you haven't read a thing I wrote (beyond the names), or what these other people wrote, or you refuse to think about it, or you are not allowed to think about it. You are following a script, and you think we should all follow the same script and blindly believe the official lies.

Even though you appear to write nonsense most of the time in this forum, I don't doubt you can come up with a few lines of reasoning occasionally. I am trying to encourage more of that.

Baker's quote was based on what Bazant said, which I will quote:

"... But even if the ejection rate were 100%, the calculated motion of the top part would still be much slower than the free fall, as we checked long ago, of course."

Indeed, how could that be? If 100% of the material is ejected, that means 0% remains to fall. Yes the collapse would be much slower - it would stop. That should make sense to anyone. It's not about using math; it's whether the math makes sense.

The paper by Gordon Ross is much more technical, but still very readable. I would encourage you to do so. Think for yourself.


Great liars are also great magicians.
- Adolf Hitler

How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.
- Adolf Hitler

The great mass of people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.
- Adolf Hitler

If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.
- Adolf Hitler

Demoralize the enemy from within by surprise, terror, sabotage, assassination. This is the war of the future.
- Adolf Hitler

[SDuderstadt]

35. Stupid strawman argument

You are following a script, and you think we should all follow the same script and blindly believe the official lies.

It's really silly (and pathetic) to pretend you know the poster's state of mind. It's evan sillier to presuppose that someone cannot take issue with the "truth movement" without being some sort of shill for the government. Your statement is also a classic "either/or" fallacy, in that it assumes there are only two choices: either embrace the beliefs of the "truth movement" or "blindly believe the official lies". Surely you understand there are hundreds, if not thousands, of sources of information about 9/11 other than the Bush administration.

[dlaliberte]

36. Don't believe me or anyone else - find out for yourself

You claim 'Your statement is also a classic "either/or" fallacy, in that it assumes there are only two choices: either embrace the beliefs of the "truth movement" or "blindly believe the official lies".'

But I clearly said something quite different from your extremes. Please do not believe me or anyone else on faith. Find out for yourself. Think for yourself.

Yes, you can take issue with any of the hundreds of sources of information - please do. But how you take issue makes a difference. Merely ignoring information because you don't like where it is coming from doesn't cut it. But I am not saying you should blindly accept any of it either. You have to apply yourself and figure out what makes sense. What do we really know for sure?

Would you also join with me and ask people to think for themselves? That would be great.

We don't have time to question everything, and certainly we tend to rely on the reputation of others, and those we have grown to trust. It would be great if we could trust our government, for example. But could the government lie to us? Um, yes.

[Bolo Boffin]

37. A doctorate in the relevant subject matter vs. a high school diploma is NOT "based on reputation"

Your cannonball Godwinizing is noted for the record.

[Realityhack]

52. But it is a STUPID quote.

"Bazant admitted that "100%" of the debris ejected from the towers could go outside the footprints, and that, according to his mathematical model, "collapse" would still continue. This is patently absurd, because if 100% of the mass went outside the footprint, 0% would be left to push down on the intact structure below."

Fucking retarded. The person you are quoting clearly has no idea WTF they are talking about. I will take the careful peer reviewed calculations of an expert in the field that I can verify myself over the babbling of random people any time.

[dlaliberte]

94. STUPID indeed

The person I was quoting was quoting Bazant as saying the collapse would continue even if 100% of the mass was ejected. Yes it is "fucking retarded" as you say, but William Seger also agrees with this, apparently (see further down in the responses).

Or are you suggesting, by bolding the "debris" and the "mass", that the debris being ejected from the towers was somehow different from the mass. Maybe you think it is a big deal to call the mass being ejected "debris" even though it is not yet on the ground.

Perhaps the trick here that allows Bazant to correctly make this claim is that the collapse would continue, according to his model, but at a very much slower rate.

Or maybe you are just making noise.

[William Seger]

43. Simple "basic physics" question

> "If you are happy accepting that the floor structure could hold up 3 times the weight of *ALL* floors above, then I'll take it."

Okay, now tell me how much impact force, expressed in Gs, the tower tops would deliver if they fell just one floor -- call it 12 feet. (In reality, the collapse mechanism proposed by NIST probably meant that columns buckled at one floor level, allowing the floor above to fall two floors before hitting the floor below the buckling, but lets keep is simple for now.)

[William Seger]

49. No answer to my question?

It's just "basic physics."

[William Seger]

55. Still no answer? Need a hint?

If something falls for a distance of 12 feet, what is the impact force, expressed in Gs? The answer is... it just depends, of course. Since impact G force is a deceleration rate, the impact force just depends on how quickly the object decelerates. That's why dropping a glass on concrete will usually give a much different result than dropping it on a carpet.

So, since it was something of a trick question, let's rephrase it to make it relevant to the issue of the tower tops falling 12 feet. You have said that you believe every part of the structure was capable of carrying (as a static load) about 3 times the weight it was actually carrying, and I'll accept that as being approximately correct. So, roughly speaking, we should expect that the structure should be able to handle a 3 G deceleration of the structure above if it was falling.

So, if a tower top fell 12 feet, what condition would need to be met to keep the deceleration at 3 Gs or less?

[jberryhill]

18. It's been, what, two or three years since we had a pod person

I'm impressed.

Dylan Avery sold out on pods to, uh, defend his greedy lifestyle, I suppose.

[LARED]

19. Very interesting

I wonder if 9/11 fads recycle like bell bottoms and tie-dyed shirts get to be fashionable every once in a while.

Will concrete cores make a comeback next?

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dlaliberte]

21. ad hominem attacks will get you nowhere

You guys don't have anything specific to say about the evidence but instead attack the mere idea of it. As if people should be embarrassed to mention "your pod is showing".

So you consider the truth a popularity fad, hoping it will go out of fashion? There is nothing you are discrediting but yourself with such an attack.

Look at the videos people. And try to ignore the low level of comments attached to the videos, and here. They are just trying to scare you away from discovering what they couldn't hide.

----
http://letsroll911.org/index.php?option=com_content&vie...

"The Appendage or Pod on the Fuselage of "Flight 175" One of the more controversial issues among 911 researchers, if for no other reason than it is so obvious and easy to see that something is terribly wrong with this aircraft. It was recorded and shown by all News Media sources, CNN, ABC, FOX, New York Times, Camera-Planet, Newsday Magazine and countless others. It doesn't matter what it is. What matters is that it shouldn't be there, and shows beyond reasonable doubt that this was not Flight 175, which took off from Boston International Airport on 911."


"Boeing was asked to identify this equipment, obvious in almost all the news photos from 911. They refused to identify it, and instead suggested that these questions be answered by the 911 Omission."

[LARED]

22. I'll try and be nice

First off I did not address your "argument" so there was no ad hominem attack.

Second, there is no argument for pods. IMO you are simply an advocate for pods, simply doing what all good little 9/11 CT advocates do; speculate about the most ridiculous things that are easily explained. Any premise for pods or missiles was long ago correctly dismissed as foolishness. You seem to be a few years behind the curve of 9/11 CT's.

You basically are going to post a bunch of nonsense that was completely debunked years ago. And instead of saying oh, sorry let me get up to speed on the latest and greatest 9/11 theorists (ie foolishness) you are going to stick with your pods until the bitter end.

[dlaliberte]

23. Show me some evidence that the evidence is false

I seem to have missed any legitimate argument against the apparent extra equipment other than giggles and aspersions of foolishness. The dismissive "it's just shadows" argument is a faint attempt, but doesn't really do more than hand wave, hoping you will buy the illusion.

If your idea of debunking is, as you have shown in this forum, twisting and obfuscating, then I'm sure there was plenty of that.

Maybe you are a little behind the curve in the debunking of debunkers. Please see the following page, from which I quote a few passages.

http://911anomalies.wordpress.com/2007/06/17/debunking-... /

"The pod “debunkers” nearly always reference the pod evidence with the ridiculous no-plane or TV fakery theories." -- hmm, sounds familiar

"The pod is actually a wing fairing or reflection" - saw that, debunked that.

How about, "It couldn't have been a pod because why would it be there? Pay no attention to that flash before impact because: The flash is a static discharge, sparks or reflection" Um, the flash is before impact, and on the right side directly in front of that pod thing.

"Conclusion

The pod and flash evidence are strong evidence for a 9/11 inside job. The “debunking” efforts are unmerited and can easily be debunked themselves. They also demonstrated the smear campaigns against the researchers themselves as demonstrated by the charges that Phil Jayhan edited the footage which we completely debunked.

We hope you keep an open mind on this subject and take a look at the aircraft evidence for yourself."

[dlaliberte]

38. I found evidence - pods are questionable

Since I didn't get any real help here regarding pods, I kept looking myself. If you are truly trying to help people learn the truth, please avoid the ad hominem attacks since they will tend to get the opposite effect. I particularly dislike the irrational attacks by debunkers, which sounds merely like trying to obfuscate and cover up the truth rather than honestly find out the truth and present convincing arguments.

It doesn't help if *anyone* is not looking at the evidence one way or another, holding on to their original conceptions regardless of the facts. But a few of us are looking, and in the process of trying to find more evidence for pods with better analysis, instead I found the opposite.

Please read: http://911wideopen.com/pod-exam.htm
and especially read the sections referenced at the bottom of that page. It helps that this presentation comes from someone who also had believed the pod theory and discovered the opposite.

I believe that there IS a real, bona fide conspiracy surrounding 9/11. It seems to me that the evidence is overwhelming for that. However, this does not mean that I do, or that I must, buy into every single idea that a theorist puts forward and it would be quite hypocritical of me to go around blindly promoting ideas that I am skeptical of myself.
...
I'd say that 99% of my very reasonable questions and analysis have been ignored by the crew at the LetsRoll forums. It's not as if they've thoroughly addressed my analysis and determined it to be implausible. No, it has simply been dismissed out of hand.

Another page that presents part of the same argument is http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html
I'd read this page previously, but was not convinced.

I had an idea on what might be done to get more information out of the fuzzy videos, and reinforce the rather clear photo(s) and supporting evidence of pods seen on other aircraft. And I've done some initial work on implementing it, but I could use help from others who can do video/image processing more professionally.

My idea is that, while each frame of the videos is fuzzy and it is difficult to tell what is what, we have many frames of such fuzzy images, each with a slightly different kind of distortion, how about we combine the images from each frame, averaging out the noisy differences. If done right, we should be able to see something with more clarity.

One video I processed is found here (If you don't trust the webfairy video, I can do the same thing with other videos):
http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/2hit/ghostplane/ghostpla...

The process I used for this video was the following:

1. Split the mov with Blaze Media Pro, which writes each frame in a separate image file.
2. Load all the images that I want (the first 9 in this case) as layers for a new image in GIMP.
3. Create a new image with a white background, 400x400.
4. Select the first layer, and with rectangle tool, select the area within one frame.
5. Paste it as a new layer in the new image.
6. Double its size using scale tool (200%x200%), since we are going to be merging pixels. Could use larger scale for more accuracy.
7. For subsequent layers, adjust the opacity of the layer down to somewhere around 50% - so you can see the layers below.
8. With selection tool, move the image to the middle, or for subsequent layers, over the image in the previous layers. Toggle the eye icon for the layer on and off to see whether it is aligned.
9. Repeat 4-8 with each subsequent frame/layer.
10. Adjust all the layers of the new image to same opacity, 1/n for n layers. Not sure what works here.
11. Use 'Copy visible' and paste to a new image, Save as jpg or png, etc.

This worked fairly well, but perhaps there is a better way to merge the layers. Here is the result I got:



Earlier I produced another image using the stabilized CNN video (can't find a link at the moment) :



Since the plane is stabilized to be in the same position in each frame (by whoever did the stabilizing) the job of merging the frames is easier. But over the entire video, the plane orientation is a little different, and the stabilization reference also shifts a bit. So I just took a sequence near the beginning that is fairly uniform.

These are admittedly fuzzy images, and perhaps applying some deblurring or edge detection to the images will expose more structure. But what stands out is that nothing new is exposed so far. The pod-like features visible in some frames of videos look more like normal parts of the plane.

I plan to apply this process to other videos to see what else can be learned. The videos showing the upper half of the plane will be useful to maybe see the windows, assuming they are there.

[Bolo Boffin]

39. "I particularly dislike the irrational attacks by debunkers,"

But we WANT you to preach pod nonsense here. I'm quite alright with it. The more you preach pod nonsense, the more people understand that 9/11 CT are exactly that.

I'm really glad that you're pulling yourself out of the pod nonsense. Good for you! You are no longer a cautionary tale on that front. But understand this: YOU are the only one that can do this for yourself. I could be the most patient, supportive person to guide you out of this nonsense and it wouldn't do a lick of good. The only way out is you walking out. The only way you're going to find the truth is if you choose to accept it. Things like pod nonsense and plane denial and controlled demolition twaddle serve to blind you to the real truth (not that you advocate all of these things).

I promise that you can hate George Bush as much as I do when you extricate yourself from this silliness.

[dlaliberte]

40. "But we WANT you to preach pod nonsense here"

For anyone half-way rational, that approach has the opposite effect. The more you try to obscure the truth, the more it exposes that you are trying to obscure the truth. You cast doubt on everything you say. People may tend to believe the opposite of what you say, or at least give it more credibility.

It is not about hating George Bush, although I still get nauseous listening to him, even after years of desensitization.

My previous belief in the pods was tied to other evidence, primarily the flashes. But on further examination, the flashes do not appear to be very clearly to the right of the impact except in one video, where the nose of the plane would be in shadow (from the building), and the brightness of the flash could cause the shadowed area to be obscured. So the flashes could be in direct line with the impact of the nose of the plane. Why the flashes are so bright is still a question in my mind. I haven't seen convincing evidence about that.

Controlled demolition is another matter entirely. Absolute proof is in the physical impossibility of the symmetrical, near-free-fall collapse due to gravity. NIST doesn't defend it, but merely references Bazant, whose arguments are fundamentally flawed, as shown by http://www.bloglines.com/blog/spooked911/2007_12 and several other people. If you haven't examined any of these arguments one way or another, but merely repeat them, believing they must be true, or who knows what, then you are part of the problem.

Keep in mind, I don't necessarily believe or disbelieve any other theories, no matter who I reference. No-plane theories, in particular, sound as fabricated as the planes they suppose are. I have a friend I trust who saw the planes hit the buildings. Micro-nukes might be possible, especially for taking out the core columns. Indeed, keep an open mind.

[Bolo Boffin]

41. "the more it exposes that you are trying to obscure the truth."

Nothing could be further from the truth. Working in opposition to the information you are spreading here is not trying to obscure the truth. It is trying to keep the truth unobscured with your silly ideas.

[William Seger]

42. "Bazant, whose arguments are fundamentally flawed,.."

"... as shown by http://www.bloglines.com/blog/spooked911/2007_12 and several other people."

Dr. Bazant is a professor of structural mechanics who has written several text books and hundreds of peer-reviewed technical articles on the subject. Recognition of his expertise is demonstrated by the fact that he is one of the most cited authors is other peer-reviewed technical articles. His most detailed analysis of the WTC collapses was peer reviewed and published in the Journal of Structural Mechanics, where hundreds of thousands of qualified people were given ample opportunity to make an instant "name" for themselves by proving Bazant was wrong. The problem is, of course, they would need to do that using the actual principles of structural mechanics, not imaginary physics.

Spooked911 -- of "flaming bunny cage" fame, btw -- is an anonymous blogger who apparently knows nothing whatsoever about the subject of structural mechanics -- extremely little about physics in general, actually -- who has a very long history around here of making one ridiculous claim after another based on shoddy analysis and faulty reasoning.

So here's YOUR chance to make an instant "name" for yourself. Given that "as shown by Spooked911" is laughably inadequate, on what grounds do YOU claim that Bazant's "arguments are fundamentally flawed?" (But feel free to borrow any of Spooky's arguments that you think you can defend.)

[dlaliberte]

45. Bazant is bizarre

First, for an engineering viewpoint, please watch this video of Gordon Ross: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/070707Ros... or http://vodpod.com/watch/1002525-gordon-ross-911-collaps... Also read the corresponding article: http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html I dare you.


Bazant assumes that an entire floor (98th in the north tower) went from supporting 5 times the weight of all floors above to 0, vanishing instantly. He requires that so the block of floors above could accelerate enough to then crush all floors below. And that is just the start of his nonsense.

Bazant also assumes symmetrical collapse. Does this (south tower top tipping) look symmetrical to you?



(See http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/rotatio... for the short explanation.)

Bazant's Work Rests on Complete Baloney
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/12/bazants-wo...

"Now scientists seem to be waking up, as Bazant's latest "analysis" was apparently rejected from the "journal of engineering mechanics"." -- so says Spooky

Yes, I am citing Spook - so what? His argument against Bazant is correct, though I don't (yet) buy his argument for nukes, and I don't appreciate his argument regarding thermite. How exactly the towers were demolished is not exactly known, but we don't have to know everything to know that the towers did not fall due to gravitational collapse. They were demolished.


Here is Gordon's analysis of Bazant:
MOMENTUM TRANSFER ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF THE UPPER STOREYS OF WTC1
http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id1.html


Greening is similar to Bazant. Nay, he is more bizarre than Bazant.
"Sorry Dr. Greening et al." http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id4.html


“Hand Waving” the Physics of 9/11, by David L Griscom
shows the flaws in Manuel Garcia's arguments
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/e/hand-wavin...

“Griscom, who has some 185 professional papers to his credit, is urging fellow physicists
to look diligently into the circumstances of the 9/11 attacks. "I implore my fellow
physicists and engineers who may have the time, expertise and -- ideally -- supercomputer
access to get to work on the TRUE physics of the World Trade Center
collapses and publish their findings in refereed journals like Physical Review and the
Journal of Applied Physics."”

[dlaliberte]

46. JEM is bordering on journalistic and scientific fraud

If you are interested in finding out the truth and matters of scientific credibility, you should also read this:

Journal of Engineering Mechanics Publishes Critical Review of The Bazant/Greening Paper by James Gourley
http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=660

"Not much is ever written about what we go through to get these papers published. The publication of this paper is a case study in the struggles we face. I’d like to relate to you exactly what I had to go through to get this paper published, and what influences the substance of it have already had. I hesitate to reveal some of the information below, but as will become clear, the Journal of Engineering Mechanics personnel have demonstrated a complete lack of scientific ethics, and I feel like I have no choice but to publish exactly what occurred in the lead up to my paper’s publication."

Yes, James Gourley is a lawyer. So what. We can all understand the flawed physics of Bazant/Greening without much trouble at all.

[AZCat]

47. How is the thread on the physics of 9/11 going?

LARED tells me you're "working on it". Maybe you can explain there exactly what it is you understand about Bazant/Greening, and how your explanation is better than theirs.

[William Seger]

50. LMAO!

Did you even read Bazant's reply to Gourley? Bazant literally handed Gourley his ass, then politely suggested that anyone who wishes to enter the debate ought to first take the time to learn what the fuck they're talking about -- and Gourley is too stupid and arrogant to realize that Bazant made him look like a complete jackass.

[Realityhack]

53. Yeah. I imagine they ONLY published that so Bazanat could make fun of it.

It was surprisingly shoddy even for someone not in the field. I would expect better from an AP Physics student.

[William Seger]

54. Not exactly "make fun of it", perhaps

I think it was more of a warning that people who don't know what they are talking about simply aren't in any position to contribute anything constructive to the discussion of what happened to the towers, and to address some of the common misconceptions being spread around the conspirosphere by unqualified people like Gourley. Gourley's reaction, though, is priceless: He just blew off the "no scientific merit" at the beginning and the "get a clue" admonition at the end, and obviously didn't understand the detailed deconstruction in between. Instead, he seems to think that having his "paper" (which was actually just a letter to the editor) published in the Journal indicates that it should be treated with respect. So, WE get to make fun of it, anyway.

[William Seger]

48. Once again, you're late to the party...

... and all the beer and chips are gone. The search function would tell you that Ross has been discussed here many times, and Google searches will lead you to where his analysis has been discussed elsewhere. Short answer: His analysis is simply wrong. One reason: Ross counted the energy of pulverizing concrete twice -- once as energy lost in the inelastic collision, and also as a separate "energy demand" line item. Another larger reason: He assumed that the floor that was first hit was destroyed, and also that the floor that did the hitting was destroyed, which is likely true, but that would mean a subsequent fall of two floor heights, not one, so the available energy would be double the number Ross used. If you simply correct either one of those two errors while accepting all of his other dubious assumptions, then Ross' analysis is actual yet another confirmation that total collapse should be expected. But Bazant himself, in this JEM article, nailed the major flaw in Ross' argument (although he doesn't mention Ross): the assumption that energy was transferred some 24 floors away from the collision by momentum transfer, as the columns acted like long springs. The reason that didn't happen is that such a stress wave would exceed the plastic limit of the steel, so the columns would fracture before that could happen. There are other less significant problems, but when all is said and done, Ross' entire argument collapses at free-fall, and I don't believe he's been heard from since. Sorry.

> "Bazant assumes that an entire floor (98th in the north tower) went from supporting 5 times the weight of all floors above to 0, vanishing instantly."

Even if I assume that you meant "capable of supporting 5 times the weight of all floors above," one thing we absolutely know from the videos is that the collapses began when the perimeter columns on one side buckled inward, which caused sequential overloading and failure of adjacent columns, i.e. a horizontal progressive failure, with no sign of explosives. Why that progressive failure happened is explained by NIST's finite element analysis model. Anyone who would like to claim that explosives were actually involved to trigger the collapse needs to do more than make farting noises in the general direction of NIST's model; They need to explain to me what I can clearly see for myself in this video: How did explosives cause those columns to slowly bend inward over a period of at least 20 minutes before the collapse, and then what kind of "suck bomb" pulled those columns inward to initiate the collapse?

> "He requires that so the block of floors above could accelerate enough to then crush all floors below. And that is just the start of his nonsense."

But you've got the shoe on the wrong foot: After those columns buckled, it's abject nonsense to suggest that anything happened except that the top block of floors accelerated and hit the floors below. If you are laboring under the misconception that buckled steel columns should just slowly sag down and gently lower the top blocks, then a little research into that subject should disabuse you of the notion.

> "Bazant also assumes symmetrical collapse."

Yes, he assumes that, because otherwise the problem is intractable to solve with manual calculations. His analysis is a simplified model, but what you seem to be missing is that that's the best possible case, as far as survivability of the structure is concerned: Under that assumption, the impact forces would be equally distributed, straight down, so the structure would need to be stressed to its absolute maximum stress capacity before it would fail. Please use a little common sense, which Spooky seems to lack: Asymmetric collapse cannot possibly allow the structure to absorb more stress than its absolute maximum capacity with a symmetric collapse. In the actual collapse, the asymmetric and chaotic nature meant that the structure failed with forces well short of their maximum capacity, because of the loss of the structural integrity that's required for any structure to maintain maximum strength. And in fact, that's another thing I can clearly see for myself in that video, at least in the case of the perimeter columns: Once those first columns buckled inward and the building started falling, perimeter column sections are seen to be alternately pushed outward and pulled inward like an accordion. They didn't need to be stressed to the point of buckling failure, because the floors that held them vertical are being destroyed in the collapse. I don't really have much need for Bazant's or Ross' estimates for carrying capacity and impact forces for those columns, when I can see for myself that they are being pushed and pulled aside after the structural integrity provided by the floors has been lost, with absolutely zero evidence of any explosives doing that pulling and pushing. I also don't need much imagination to suppose that the same general thing is happening to the core columns. The real explanation for the total global collapse is that the building literally ripped itself apart; the structure failed primarily because of the loss of structural integrity. Office buildings are simply not designed to withstand that kind of disaster, because doing so would make them prohibitively expensive.

> "'Now scientists seem to be waking up, as Bazant's latest "analysis" was apparently rejected from the "journal of engineering mechanics".' -- so says Spooky"

Yeah, well, Spooky says a lot of things that he ought to be embarrassed about. The paper was published in the October 2008 issue of JEM: http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Pa...

It's fairly common that most people will decide who to believe based on what they want to believe, but if you're going to dismiss a recognized expert like Bazant's highly technical, peer-reviewed analysis based on Spooky's blathering, then I'm sorry, but you can't expect to be taken seriously.

[AZCat]

51. An interesting sidenote...

It is possible for stress waves with a magnitude greater than the plastic limit of steel to propagate through steel, if the length of the impulse is short enough. There was an interesting article in ASME Magazine back in 2003 (link to article). It's interesting to see that, as the article states, The amount of stress, or excitation, that the impulse places on the structure can be figured as the integral of the load over time of duration. Initially, this excitation is resisted by inertial forces, which are gradually transformed into structural deformation and internal stresses. If the excitation is sufficiently large, the structural deformation and internal stresses can cause failure. I don't usually think about intertial forces within a continuous object, but it's clear that in certain situations (like pressure vessels for testing of nuclear components) the impulse from the explosion is short enough to allow the internal inertia to dampen the stresses in the steel.

Very interesting, IMO.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

61. "once the tilting started, after about 2 seconds, the controller noticed and quickly demolished..."

"once the tilting started, after about 2 seconds, the controller noticed and quickly demolished the lower half of the upper levels"

[dlaliberte]

62. Maybe the controller was automated

Glad you enjoyed that.

Any idea why my message was deleted? This forum is going to shit if people can spend hours writing a message to have it deleted on some technicality. I was civil, except for referring to you guys as knuckleheads. Prove me wrong.

[AZCat]

63. Prove you wrong?

We weren't responsible for the deletion of the post - it was the moderators. None of us - including them - has access to the text of your post. Asking us to prove you wrong is impossible.

If I put a lot of work into writing a post (which I haven't done in a while) I will save a copy of the text somewhere in case the forum glitches when I try to submit it. It also works as backup if the post is deleted.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AZCat]

65. "We" meaning me and boloboffin.

If you have a problem with the way this site is run, tough shit. It isn't a public forum - it's a privately owned and run forum. You post here as a privilege, not a right. If you don't like that then go post somewhere else where the rules are more to your liking, or start your own forum.

[William Seger]

66. You spent several hours writing a post

... and you still don't have an answer to the "basic physics" question above? That's a shame, since it would give you a good insight into why the buildings collapsed, and you might not waste so much time on imaginary physics and faulty arguments.

[dlaliberte]

67. You spent no time thinking about the problem for yourself

Your abuse of rational discourse is what ought to be deleted, after you are tried and found guilty of obfuscation.

[William Seger]

69. On the contrary, Mr. dlaliberte

Once again, you are completely wrong: I've spent quite a bit of time thinking about it myself, and in fact, the point I've been trying to make with you in that "basic physics" question above is my own argument, not one that I've read anywhere else. It's a question a high-school freshman physics student should be able to answer, and as I said, the answer would give you some good insight into why the towers collapsed -- no PhD required. You don't know the answer, and apparently you don't even know where to go find the answer. Ironically, I specifically asked that question to see if I could get YOU to actually THINK about it, but you just ignored that question and come down here to accuse me of not thinking and "abuse of rational discourse." Sorry, but it's clear to me that YOU are the one who appears to have spent very little time in actually THINKING about the problem, but you have spent a lot of time looking for people who will tell you what you want to hear: 9/11 was an inside job because the towers shouldn't have collapsed the way they did. It hasn't yet dawned on you why the only people who are saying that are people who don't really know what they're talking about, and not a single qualified person who agrees with them. The idea that all the qualified structural engineers in the world are in on this "cover up" and not exposing the errors that you claim are in Bazant's analysis, is borderline insane.

I've also spent a lot of time wading through the arguments made by "truthers," including many that you haven't yet parroted here. I'm not a structural engineer, but I did work directly with engineers for 5 years as a structural draftsman, so I am fairly familiar with the basic concepts. I can't, by any means, offer an expert critique of Bazant's analysis, but I can certainly follow along with the arguments he and other engineers are making, and I can certainly apply the knowledge I do have and some common sense to thinking about it. I can also compare those arguments to the ignorant and nonsensical blather of people like Spooky and Gourley, so if you use "sources" like those to claim that Bazant is a fraud, then you can damn well suffer the consequences of the impression you make on people who know better.

If your idea of "rational discourse" means you think you should be allowed to pass bullshit along to other gullible people without it being challenged, then yup, I'm happy to abuse that "discourse" every chance I get.

[dlaliberte]

70. You are exhibiting exactly what I am talking about

I don't know if you saw my message before it was deleted - I will be attempting to find out what the moderator thought was objectionable and I will post again.

Most of what you just said about me has no justification.

I'll grant that you are able to think about the problem, partly because I believe everyone is able to. But I can guarantee you haven't done more than try to justify the official story, and Bazant's and NIST's and FEMA's changing rationalization of it, and look for any twistable opportunity in anything that might challenge it. You are the one that is parroting the tired old scripts, updated over time as the official cover story is updated to attempt to repair its fundamental flaws.

I don't know if you are capable of really being honest with yourself about what you know for certain rather than what you trust someone else has told you. I do see a lot of dishonesty in the manipulation and misleading diversion you guys employ in your version of 'rational discourse'. I am not here for a debate where the point is to win an argument regardless whether it is true and honest. I am here to find truth and help others find it, whatever it turns out to be. I would hope you and everyone else is as well.

The admission by one of you guys (you're all the same, a blur of obfuscators) that you want 'truthers' to believe in pods because that makes your debate easier is a perfect demonstration of how you don't care about the truth.

One would need to be the equivalent of a magician for structural engineers to disguise a justification for the official story in such a way that even most structural engineers don't want to bother trying to figure it out. But enough qualified people have done so, and they find that Bazant is a fraud, concerned only with justifying the official story.

On the other hand, you don't need more than high-school physics to understand why the official story is a pack of lies. I encourage everyone to find out for themselves.

Challenge me all you want, please. But do so with integrity and clarity, not rampant obfuscation.

[AZCat]

68. But that's not the sort of answer he's seeking.

And that's the supreme irony of the so-called "truth movement".

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dlaliberte]

73. Clarification regarding more massive lower floors

I will respond to some of your other points and observations in another response, because I think they are legitimate concerns, and especially since you say they are your own ideas.

One correction to what I wrote, regarding the energy transfer to increasingly massive lower floors:
"When the less massive upper floors collapsed down into the increasingly
massive lower floors, would that reduce the kinetic energy of
falling, and thus reduce the acceleration? How much would the
acceleration be decreased?"

Conservation of momentum means that the total energy remains the same before and after the collision. So the increasingly massive lower floors would have more inertia which means they would be less inclined to move. So the acceleration of the falling floors is less than it would be if all the floors had the same mass, but not because of loss of kinetic energy. Rather it is because of the increase in mass.

[AZCat]

77. What?!

No wonder you're having trouble understanding simple physics problems. Conservation of momentum does not mean that the kinetic energy of the system remains the same after the collision!

Example:
m = mass, v = speed (we'll use scalars here)

Two bodies, with mass m1 = m2

v1i means the speed of body 1 prior to impact.
v2e means the speed of body 2 after impact.
After impact, v1e = v2e (perfectly inelastic collision, a fair assumption here)

v2i = 0 -> body 2 is at rest.

Conservation of momentum:
m1*v1i + m2*v2i = m1*v1e + m2*v2e

Kinetic energy prior to impact:
KEi = 0.5*m1*(v1i)^2 + 0.5*m2*(v2i)^2
KEi = 0.5*m1*(v1i)^2

Velocity of bodies after impact (using conservation of momentum):
m1*v1i + m2*v2i = m1*v1e + m2*v2e
m1*v1i = m1*v1e + m2*v2e
m1*v1i = m1*v1e + m1*v2e
v1i = v1e + v2e
v1i = v1e + v1e
v1i = 2*v1e
v1e = 0.5*v1i

Kinetic energy after impact:
KEe = 0.5*m1*(v1e)^2 + 0.5*m2*(v2e)^2
KEe = 0.5*m1*(v1e)^2 + 0.5*m1*(v2e)^2
KEe = 0.5*m1*(0.5*v1i)^2 + 0.5*m1*(0.5*v1i)^2
KEe = m1*(0.5*v1i)^2
KEe = 0.25*m1*(v1i)^2

KEe = 0.5*KEi

So while momentum is conserved, the kinetic energy in the system is cut in half by the impact! For fuck's sake, can't any of you conspiracy theorists be bothered to learn a little about these subjects before declaring yourselves experts?

[dlaliberte]

79. Was your missreading deliberate?

Your math is correct, but you have misstated what I said. I said "total energy" and you misread (or misstated) that as "kinetic energy".

With your assumption of perfectly inelastic collision (which, by the way, is not a fair assumption in reality, but I'll leave that for now) yes, the kinetic energy is cut in half (assuming floors have the same mass). But the lost energy goes somewhere else. It is converted to heat in this case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inelastic_collision
"In collisions of macroscopic bodies, some kinetic energy is turned into vibrational energy of the atoms, causing a heating effect, and the bodies are deformed."

I see my second attempt at posting my message was also deleted, with no explanation given. I don't know what the fuck is going on in this forum, but I am reaching my tolerance limit for intolerance, and uncivilized behavior by the lot of you.

[AZCat]

81. You seem to think WE are responsible for the deletion of your messages.

It's not us - it's the moderators. Your failure to post within the rules is no-one's fault but your own, and the only uncivilized behavior is coming from you.

Inelastic collisions are a fair mathematical simplification. The energy isn't necessarily converted into heat - it is used to deform the bodies. Conservation of momentum isn't conservation of energy. If you had meant that, you would have said it.

[dlaliberte]

84. Does the moderator go looking for things to delete, or wait for reports of 'abuse'?

If you are taking advantage of a technicality to report 'abuse' when I merely reference a completely innocent video on, say, prisonplanet, and the moderator doesn't have time to view all the videos to find out, then you are doing the abuse, not me.

Yes of course conservation of momentum is not the same as conservation of energy. I didn't mean to suggest it was, though my statement was ambiguous. You chose to misstate 'total energy' as 'kinetic energy', and make the most of it. I am tired of it. I will very soon ignore the lot of you.

[AZCat]

86. I don't know - why don't you ask them?

I haven't reported on any of your posts. If the moderators delete your posts, it's you who is in error, regardless who alerted on them (if they were at all).

I'm not surprised you're "tired" of this. I'll bet you'll do anything to avoid creating the thread you've promised that somehow explains using basic physics how the towers could not have collapsed the way the NIST describes. Go ahead and ignore us all if sticking your head in the sand is the only way to protect your fantasies.

[William Seger]

75. Jeez, first....

... perhaps you can tell me why I should take the time to respond to all this "stuff" posted by someone who can't answer the "baslc physics" question above?

Here's the point: I certainly can give you an answer to every issue you've raised (and perhaps I will anyway when I get the time, which won't be today), but let's get one thing straight: Obviously, neither one of us is a physicist or a structural engineer. But between the two of us, your knowledge seems to be woefully inadequate to seriously engage in "rational discourse" on either topic. That "basic physics" question is absolutely relevant to the issue of a continuing collapse: mass in motion. If you don't understand how impact forces work, you will never understand why the collapses happened. You will continue to insist that it shouldn't have happened, but your arguments will be forever founded in ignorance and personal incredulity, not in physics or structural mechanics. I do believe that anyone who understands the answer to that question will immediately have some basic understanding of why the total collapse makes perfect sense. If you don't understand the answer, then you simply aren't in any position to dispute that claim.

But you don't seem to be very interested in learning anything that would contradict your "demolition" speculations: You will fend off any "rational discourse" that disputes your arguments by deluding yourself into thinking that people who don't agree with you must not have thought it through as well as you have.

In the larger picture, any debate between you and me is really irrelevant and inconsequential. While I'm certainly not an expert myself, I do believe I have some common sense with regards to whose expert opinions are trustworthy, and some understanding of how disputes among experts are worked out. You quote from Ace Baker -- the guy who wrote the theme song for the Barbie movie and who claims no planes hit the towers -- and Spooked911 -- the guy who set a bunny cage on fire to "prove" that the towers shouldn't have collapsed because of fire. But the only apparent reason for taking those guys seriously is that you like the conclusions they reach, since very little of what they say makes any sense at all, and the issues they completely ignore are staggering. Gordon Ross certainly talks a much better game -- I thought his analysis was interesting and far more impressive than anything else coming out of the "truth movement" -- but he has had over a year now to respond to his critics about claimed errors in his analysis -- criticisms that seem valid to me -- and all I've seen from him since then are attempts to raise different issues. If Gordon Ross (or anyone else) can really mount a serious technical challenge to Bazant's analysis, there's a fairly well recognized venue for fighting it out -- peer-reviewed technical journals -- but Ross only publishes on 9/11 conspiracy propaganda sites. That ought to raise a red flag to a rational person.

So, if you can, please tell me why I should take the time to answer your post, to someone who will likely not understand the answers and who has already dismissed them before I type the first one?

[dlaliberte]

76. please take your time

I understand it will take some time to process what I wrote. Don't feel the need to make knee-jerk responses.

If you read carefully, and also read my clarification note, you will notice that I do understand about mass in motion and what impulse is about. So your diversion doesn't work.

I am absolutely interested in learning anything that contradicts the demolition theory. That is what scientists do when they try to falsify their own theories. But I am not interested in merely accepting the claims of anyone, nor should you be, supposed expert or not. So give me evidence and reasons, not platitudes and rhetoric.

Gordon Ross says he thought his opponents where defeating themselves well enough on their own, but he is probably a little naive about how well people are able to see through the illusions. I will attempt to ask him about that and encourage (or help) him to produce some followup.

Telling me (and everyone else) that I should not reference people who you might discredit for unrelated reasons doesn't help your case. It shows you are all about appearances and politics rather than reason and science.

I will reference anyone if they make a convincing argument to me, and I will say why. I will be happy to reference you if you say something I like. For example, I am most pleased with the admission by you and Bazant that both floors will (likely?) be destroyed in each collision. Bazant used to argue that the upper floor would NOT be damaged, though the lower one would be.

And I will quote Hitler when he makes sense, especially when he reveals a lot of what is still going on today.

Great liars are also great magicians.
- Adolf Hitler

How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.
- Adolf Hitler

The great mass of people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.
- Adolf Hitler

If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.
- Adolf Hitler

Demoralize the enemy from within by surprise, terror, sabotage, assassination. This is the war of the future.
- Adolf Hitler

[greyl]

78. Do you quote G W Bush when he makes sense? nt

[dlaliberte]

80. "You cannot lead if you send mexed missages"

"It's amazing I won. I was running against peace, prosperity, and incumbency."

"Maybe some will run for office and say, vote for me, I look forward to blowing up America. "


"There's no question that the minute I got elected, the storm clouds on the horizon were getting nearly directly overhead."


"The folks who conducted to act on our country on September 11th made a big mistake. They underestimated America. They underestimated our resolve, our determination, our love for freedom. They misunderestimated the fact that we love a neighbor in need. They misunderestimated the compassion of our country. I think they misunderestimated the will and determination of the Commander-in-Chief, too."


"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror."

"The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th."

"And so, General, I want to thank you for your service. And I appreciate the fact that you really snatched defeat out of the jaws of those who are trying to defeat us in Iraq."

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we. "


"The United States of America is engaged in a war against an extremist group of folks."

"No question that the enemy has tried to spread sectarian violence. They use violence as a tool to do that."

"And the other lesson is that there are people who can't stand what America stands for, and desire to conflict great harm on the American people."


"We actually misnamed the war on terror. It ought to be the Struggle Against Ideological Extremists Who Do Not Believe in Free Societies Who Happen to Use Terror as a Weapon to Try to Shake the Conscience of the Free World."



"There's a lot of blowhards in the political process, you know, a lot of hot-air artists, people who have got something fancy to say."

"And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it."


"A lot of times in politics you have people look you in the eye and tell you what's not on their mind."

"I don't particularly like it when people put words in my mouth, either, by the way, unless I say it."


"Anybody who is in a position to serve this country ought to understand the consequences of words."

"In all due respect, I'm not so sure it's credible to quote leading news organizations about — oh, never mind."



"One of the things important about history is to remember the true history."

"Now, there are some who would like to rewrite history-revisionist historians is what I like to call them."

"The best place for the facts to be done is by somebody who's spending time investigating it."

"I tell people, let's don't fear the future, let's shape it."

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."



"I think it's very important for the American President to mean what he says. That's why I understand that the enemy could misread what I say. That's why I try to be as clearly I can."

"I'm also mindful that man should never try to put words in God's mouth. I mean, we should never ascribe natural disasters or anything else to God. We are in no way, shape, or form should a human being, play God."

" "Thou shalt not kill" is pretty universal."

"All of us in America want there to be fairness when it comes to justice."

"America stands for liberty, for the pursuit of happiness, and for the unalienalienable right of life."

"We hold dear what our Declaration of Independence says, that all have got uninalienable rights, endowed by a Creator."


"Free societies are hopeful societies. And free societies will be allies against these hateful few who have no conscience, who kill at the whim of a hat."

"It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get them out of harm's way."


"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction."


"There may be some tough times here in America. But this country was gone through tough times before, and we're going to do it again."

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it."

"Let me put it to you bluntly. In a changing world, we want more people to have control over your own life."


"Haven't we already given money to rich people? Why are we going to do it again?"

"Anyone engaging in illegal financial transactions will be caught and persecuted."


"I'll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office."

"And I, unfortunately, have been to too many disasters as president."




"... fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again."

"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"

- George W Bush, 2000-2008

[greyl]

82. So, no you don't, eh? Just Hitler?

Quoting Bush would be crossing the line?

[dlaliberte]

83. Update before replying

Your message was posted hours after my extensive quoting of Bush. Why would you think I would not quote Bush when I quote Hitler? I love to quote Bush.

As I said, I would quote anyone if they make sense, and I have a use for such a quote.

Bush makes many comments that perhaps expose his true meaning, Freudian-slipishly. So they make sense in a way that he usually didn't intend.

[William Seger]

85. Deleted again?

Maybe you should try posting without any links. Linking to conspiracy propaganda sites doesn't really help your case, anyway.

I'll answer a couple of you points from memory.

The building come mostly straight down because that's the direction of the force of gravity. All other forces were completely secondary. "Path of least resistance" applies to electricity, not to gravity, or the building wouldn't have stood up in the first place. A lot of debris got thrown out the sides because collisions can result in deflections and elastic rebounding, but only debris that was both near the edge and that received on outward-directed force vector from a collision went outside the building footprint. But the building were over 200 feet wide: Debris that wasn't near the edge and was trapped under other falling debris had no chance to escape. The falling mass kept picking up velocity, and since kinetic energy is one-half the mass times the velocity squared, velocity was the major factor, even when some mass was ejected. Every floor that was destroyed added to the falling mass, because most of it could not escape, and the collision with the next floor was at an even higher velocity.

I don't know WTF you were trying to get at by playing around with the word "destroyed." The dictionary definition fits pretty well with what we see in the videos. (As near as I can tell, you seem to be trying to imply that only explosives can "destroy" buildings, which would be too idiotic an argument to waste time on. Last week, I saw a couple of cars that were pretty well "destroyed" in a collision, and neither one was loaded with explosives.)

As for the tilting: the tilting proves that the collapse was not symmetric. Both collapses began on one side. Figure out how long each top was tilting before the other side gave way, and you have the precise time that the horizontal progressive failure took. The tilting tops were actually trying to rotate around their center of mass. By the law of "equal and opposite reaction," that mass need to push against the building in order to move sideways, and that lateral force in the opposite direction was part of the reason for the progressive horizontal failure: After the columns on one side buckled, the remaining columns received that load while they were simultaneously being pushed in the direction opposite the tilt, which reduced their ability to carry load.

During that initial tilting, one side of the building was supported while the other side was not, so the top had to tilt. Once neither side was supported, there were no forces to make the tilting continue, and indeed the rotation slowed down quickly. But there's no mystery about why that happened: If you pick up the front of a bicycle and spin the wheel, it will spin freely for quite a while. But if you lower the tire into the dirt, it slows down pretty fast. If your keen understanding of physics can figure out why that happens, you needn't be mystified by the rotation of the towers slowing down.

That's all I have time for now, but if you have any other burning issues you want addressed, please post them again -- without the offensive links.

[dlaliberte]

87. Delayed deletion. Does anyone really think my message was offensive?

The moderator replied saying I keep including links to offensive sites, but he doesnt say which ones, so how am I supposed to know? There is no list of offensive sites that I have seen. The links I included do not show anything offensive. This silent delayed deletion is insane. I am not blaming anyone, but I would like to know how this broken policy is going to be fixed.

I think of Bazant's paper as conspiracy propaganda. But propaganda is not the issue. One person's "offensive content" might be another person's "facts of life". But that is not the issue here either. Something on someone's website is offensive to someone. Gosh, youtube probably has more offensive material than all the rest of the sites I referenced all together.

"Path of least resistance" may have started out in the field of electricity but it clearly applies to other forces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_of_least_resistance

When debris gets "thrown" or "ejected" out the side, that requires energy, and that energy is subtracted from the kinetic energy of the rest of the material that is falling. So my question in this regard was how much material was thrown out and how much energy was thus required to do that. You make it sound like there is a little dribble near the edge, but it should be clear to everyone that there was a lot more than a dribble. Does Bazant's model still require no more than 20% leakage of mass? You say most of the mass could not escape. But a good estimate is that all of the concrete, which was about half of the mass, was pulverized and ejected in those huge clouds of dust, and a large fraction of the steel was also not found in the 200ft square foot print. (Note, I am not one to say the towers collapsed in their own foot print.)

Regarding the word "destroyed". You used it, and I was asking what you meant. The focus of my questions was on how much energy was required to do that destruction, how small were the resulting pieces (which affects future collisions), and how much of the destruction process resulted in ejection of mass. I don't care at this point how you think the destruction occurred, whether it was just the collisions or shock waves or anything else. The question is about what was the end result of the destruction process and how much energy was required to get there. Yes, you would have to have a model about how that occurred, but you can keep that to yourself if you just tell me what the end result was. Then we can compare that end result with what we observe. Fair enough?

I was implying nothing about the destruction being caused by explosions or anything else. Call it whatever you like, but be specific about what happened to the material:

1. It vanished into thin error (we agree this did not happen)
2. Floors just disconnected from columns like stacking pancakes (I think we agree this did not happen)
3. Floors and columns got broken and crushed into smaller pieces.

How much energy did it cost for this destruction process?
How much mass was ejected (requiring energy), and subtracted from the falling mass?

In case it is not clear (though I suspect it is) the reason for asking these questions about the energy requirements and loss of mass is to focus on the weakness of Bazant's model, which requires almost NO energy loss to maintain the near-free-fall descent. This will be true of ANY model that must account for near-free-fall descent. Every bit of energy that is taken away from the kinetic energy of falling and every bit of mass that is not falling straight down means the velocity will be reduced.

Regarding the tilting, you know about angular inertia and angular momentum, I am sure, but you seem to be not applying it. The tilting motion is initially resisted by the mass of the upper floors for the same reason that mass resists any change of motion - inertia. For rotation it is called rotational inertia, but both are caused by the same property of matter.

By talking about an "equal and opposite reaction" of the rotation, you seem to be suggesting that the rotation creates an additional force on the uncollapsed columns "in the direction opposite the tilt". Are you really saying that? Your description is a little twisted so it is difficult to parse what you are saying, but you seem to be using this reasoning to justify why the rotation suddenly stops and the vertical collapse takes over.

You say "Once neither side was supported, there were no forces to make the tilting continue" But there were. Rotational inertia also means that a rotating mass will resist stopping the rotation. Mass wants to keep moving at the same velocity, or the same angular velocity. The tilting got started because of the asymmetrical forces of the collapsing columns on one side (or so you say), and in order for the tilting to stop, there must be an equal imbalance in the opposite direction. It is not enough for there to be no imbalance.

It takes as much energy to start a rotation as to stop it. Spinning up a bicycle wheel and slowing it down require the same amount of energy.

[dlaliberte]

88. "It vanished into thin error (we agree this did not happen)"

- I need more sleep.

[William Seger]

89. Think about it some more

You probably linked to an anti-Semitic site. That's easy to do when you just Google for 9/11 conspiracy junk and don't care about the source.

You should have read that Wiki article more closely:

Note: The path of least resistance applies on a local, not global, reference. For example, water always flows downhill, regardless of whether briefly flowing uphill will help it gain a lower final altitude.

Gravity was pulling the debris down, not sideways. Moving sideways would require lateral forces, and the only lateral forces available to the falling debris were deflections and elastic rebounds from the falling motion. As I said, that allowed debris that was near the edge to escape, but the buildings were 200 feet wide. As long as the collapse proceeded roughly symmetrically, then most of the debris was trapped inside the perimeter, under other debris, and "path of least resistance" doesn't apply. The falling debris couldn't just decide to move itself over to the edge of the building and jump off because the building was in its way.

Your assertion that "a good estimate is that all of the concrete, which was about half of the mass, was pulverized and ejected in those huge clouds of dust" is absurd. No, that's not a "good estimate." It doesn't take much concrete to make a lot of concrete dust, and we know from the dust samples that were collected that a lot of the dust we see in the videos is from drywall, ceiling tiles, and insulation, not from concrete. And anyway, if you think all that dust is from all the concrete being completely pulverized by explosives, then I'd say that's another example where you don't appear to have not really thought things through as thoroughly as you claim. Greening has estimated that it would take at least 600 tons of explosives to do that. And you would have to place it all over every floor to get away with that "small" an amount, because explosives aren't really very efficient at pulverizing concrete. The explosives hypothesis therefore raises some serious problems: How did the plotters manage to do that (not to mention, why would they do that, since it would be completely unnecessary), and most significantly, why don't we see any evidence of hundreds of tons of explosives going off?

> "Does Bazant's model still require no more than 20% leakage of mass?"

No, it certainly does not. Bazant's analysis shows that even in the first stage of the collapse, the energy available was many times greater than what was required to cause the structure to fail. As each floor was destroyed, most of the debris from that floor joined the falling mass to hit the next floor, so the collision with that next floor had even greater force, because it had both more mass and (more importantly) higher velocity. After falling just one floor, well before any significant debris was lost over the side, the failure of the next floor was inevitable, and the impacts just got more and more severe, regardless of the debris falling over the side. Greening has shown that losing even large amounts of mass over the side would have just slowed the collapse a small amount; it couldn't prevent it.

> "By talking about an 'equal and opposite reaction' of the rotation, you seem to be suggesting that the rotation creates an additional force on the uncollapsed columns "in the direction opposite the tilt". Are you really saying that?"

Yes, I'm saying exactly that. Didn't you ever play with blocks as a kid? Didn't you ever notice that when you stacked them so high that the top few started tilting and falling, that they kicked the blocks immediately below in the opposite direction? That's because the center of mass of the top blocks is moving laterally. That lateral motion causes an equal and opposite reaction on the blocks below -- the blocks that are tilting are moving sideways by pushing against the block that aren't. Another way to think of it is that the tilting section is really trying to rotate around its center of mass, so the bottom part is trying to move in the opposite direction of the top part. As long as that motion is resisted, then the center of mass moves sideways. In the case of the towers, that lateral force added to progressive horizontal column failures, which can be seen clearly in several of the videos.

I said that after the columns completely failed, there weren't any forces causing the top to continue tilting, which was unintentionally inaccurate. What I meant was that there were no forces to cause the tilting to pick up more speed; there was only the angular momentum that it had already gained while one side of the building held. But my point with the bicycle wheel analogy was that the top wasn't rotating freely: It was plowing its way through the building below, so it should not be expected to keep rotating at the same rate. The angular momentum would cause the collision forces to effectively act with a vector somewhat off vertical, which would mean that some of the reaction force would be in the direction opposite the rotation, so the angular momentum was being lost in the collisions. (And, by the way, the rotation is not seen to completely stop before the top gets lost in the dust; it just slows down.)

And that's all I have time for right now...

[dlaliberte]

90. Heavy thoughts, massive coverup

You are trying to make it sound like I don't understand the concept of "path of least resistance", but earlier you were trying to say it only applied to electronics. Now you are suggesting I don't understand the local vs global constraints on finding the path of least resistance, as if I am imaging the mass would somehow jump itself away from the building to find some better path. More strawman arguments. In fact, the "path of least resistance" always *does* apply locally even when the material is trapped, because staying in the trapped space *is* then the path of least resistance. Are we in agreement now? Can we stop going down this path of least reasonable arguments?

I am giving you much more benefit of the doubt than you probably deserve. Don't squander it.

Now you (and Bazant and Greening) *claim* that most (90%?) of the material is trapped in the collapse, but (1) there is no justification for it, (2) that's not what we see, and (3) even *if* it were true, the resulting tangled mess of broken material, although more massive than if it were ejected, would absorb more of the energy in inelastic collisions. To defend a gravity-driven near-free-fall collapse, you *need* at least 80-90% of the material to be trapped, but you need much more than that.

Yes, moving sideways would require lateral forces, and *if* the only forces were due to deflections and rebounds in the downward collision process (which would be true in a gravity-driven collapse), then, indeed, it would not be enough force to explain what we see.

So let's focus on whether we can agree on what we see. I am not saying (right now) that we should look at the clouds and ejection during the 'collapse'. Let's just look at what we see on the ground afterwards. This task is made more difficult because of the rapid destruction of evidence after the fact (and the steel didn't just jump into the blast furnaces).

Greening says in http://911myths.com/WTCONC1.pdf, paraphrasing(?) the estimate by Risk Management Solutions:
"Massive debris-related damage was caused by falling debris generated as the towers collapsed.
This debris includes the bulk of building mass that disintegrated over a footprint 2 to 3 times the
radius of each building’s base, as well as large steel and concrete beams that, during the
implosion of the towers, were ejected well beyond this footprint area. This is likely to be the
principal agent of damage for most buildings near the WTC complex."

This talks about the range, but it doesn't say what the distribution of the mass was - how much was within the perimeter and how much was at various distances out in which directions. If you have some information you trust about how the mass was distributed, please let me know.

Here is a rough estimate based on discussions about whether there might be some missing debris, due to nukes or whatever. (Don't get confused by the nukes - it doesn't relate to the estimate. I won't make a link to this since I can't tell whether the moderator thinks there is some objectionable material elsewhere on the site.) covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/06/significant-amounts-of-wtc1-and-wtc2.html

Supposing the compacted volume is 11.5% of the uncollapsed buildings, as it was (apparently) for WTC7:

"11.5% of 1365 feet equals 157 feet. This means if WTC1 and WTC2 had collapsed straight down and all debris went in the footprint, there would be a 157 foot high pile of debris. This is clearly what was not seen, as the central debris pile was only about 25 feet for each tower."

80% of 157 ft is about 120 ft. Still way off compared to what we see, for the assumption that 80% of the material fell straight down. This 11.5% estimate supposedly already accounts for the basement levels, but it doesn't account for likely increased compaction of the debris from WTC1 and WTC2. Still, a 25 ft pile within the footprint doesn't sound like it will hold more than say 50% of the building material. Does that sound right to you?

Looking at photos on http://www.studyof911.com/articles/BsB092306 / I would say the amount of building mass within the footprint is a lot less than 50%, and closer to 10-20%.

In this photo, WTC2's footprint is in the foreground with some remaining perimeter columns still standing.



This cross-section view of WTC1 debris distribution looks about right to me:



It is also interesting that there is much greater distribution of debris (more mass, farther away) in the directions perpendicular to the faces, and very little is diagonally outside of the corners. This is consistent with what we saw in the 'collapse' itself in which material was flying out perpendicular to the faces, rather than randomly falling in every direction, as I would expect for a gravity-driven collapse.


I'll have to leave the other issues (pulverization and rotation) for later.

[dlaliberte]

91. WTC debris distribution

The images I included in the previous posting did not show up (even though they showed up in the preview just fine). So I found some other images that show the same kind of thing. Hope this comes through.

I believe this is WTC 1. Notice that the arch-like perimeter columns are visible, so the debris pile inside the footprint can't be more than a couple floors high. And it is not all compressed into the basement levels either. If it was, what is all the debris doing on the outside?



Cross section of WTC 1 with FEMA's map of the debris distribution pattern.




Another series of early photos (maybe Sept 13?) is at a site that might be considered (by the moderator) as objectionable: zombietime dot com
See the page at: /wtc_9-13-2001/ One of the photos made its way to the studyof911 site.

[William Seger]

92. We're not getting anywhere

You can't really tell anything about the spread of debris during the collapse by looking at the aftermath, because lot of that debris spreading would have happened after the whole mess hit the ground.

Why don't we get back to something interesting: Please post that mathematical analysis that you promised a couple weeks ago. Or, answer my "basic physics" question above. Or do you want me to answer it?

[dlaliberte]

93. a lot of the debris spreading happened after it hit the ground??

This is a new one to me. You want to hold on to the illusion that at least 90% of the mass dropped straight down and hit the ground within the perimeter, and then what, it bounced? I don't think that elephant is going to fly very well. Did anyone catch that bounce in the videos?

While the so called 'collapse' was occurring, 90% of the broken concrete and steel mass was trapped the whole way down, until it hit the ground?? The ground must be very magical and elastic because then all that trapped mass was suddenly finally free and it bounced, not just up, but in all directions?? Please, can you elaborate on this theory?

You also claim that even if there was much less mass, greater than 20% loss, the collapse would continue. But would it complete in the same time, at near-free-fall acceleration? If not, how much would it slow down?

I will continue with a few more points about the mass, showing how the loss of mass will cause the collapse to slow, including the math for it since you ask. Then we can return to the pulverization and rotation issues, and all the rest, as long as you can tolerate it. The complete math for everything will be too much for anyone to take in all at once - nor do I have it all now. I am not doing this just for you because, frankly, it appears you are not very interested in the facts anyway, mathematical or not.

I am not playing your game of "answer the basic physics question" that I have seen repeated elsewhere. If you want to answer some question you imagined you asked, please be my guest.

[dlaliberte]

95. The game of "answer the basic physics question"

I see your message now, posted as a reply to a message of mine more than two weeks earlier. You know people can't track all the threads in this forum that has no notification, and with a list of updates only within the last 48 hours. I would have replied sooner had I seen it.

[William Seger]

96. I can hardly wait

Your lectures on "path of maximum resistance" and angular momentum have been... um, fascinating, and even though you can't seem to solve that simple deceleration problem or figure out why the debris pile would flatten out when it hit the ground, I'm sure your calculations on collapse time will be one of the Great Moments in Truther Science. We can compare it to Greening's calculations using different mass losses and see how far off Greening was, huh.

[dlaliberte]

97. "path of maximum resistance" ??

[William Seger]

99. Isn't that what you claimed in one of the deleted messages?

Something about how impossible it was for the debris to crash through the whole building since that was the path of maximum resistance?

[dlaliberte]

100. Path of greatest resistance to rational thinking

Sorry, I jumped to the conclusion that you might be misstating the "path of *least* resistance", which would be consistent with your other diversions. I asked though.

But I see at http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/10/path-of-ma... that a standard ploy in your Obfuscators Big Bag of Tricks and other Diversions is to claim that the "path of least resistance" doesn't apply, which is what you tried. Well, it always does apply, but you have to apply it correctly. Following the path of least resistance does *NOT* mean somehow find any path (globally) even if it is physically impossible to get there.

The examples of water flowing downhill and electricity flowing through the components in a circuit are easy to understand because there are a large number of small interactions in a fluid or current flow, collectively adding up to what we see: the path of least resistance. Even a single bullet, which is composed of many atoms, smashing into a body, also composed of may atoms, must follow the path of least resistance. The atoms in the bullet hold together very well and so the path it follows merely involves penetrating soft flesh or ricocheting off of hard bones. The *resistance* we are talking about in all cases is the sum total of reaction forces that counter every action.

In a vertical collision between floors of the towers during a gravity-driven collapse, as long as the structures remain rigid and solid, the interactions are fewer and simpler, and they are mostly in the vertical direction, and so the path would remain vertical. But after each collision, the floors broke into many smaller pieces, and the columns broke and were forced laterally out of the way - you must admit that. And therefore, after each collision, there were soon very many interactions in all directions, not just vertical, and similar to a fluid, the pieces that are moving outward and near the edge would fall off. This is what you described, while claiming that very little mass would leak out as a result.

But this is *not* what we see in the videos. Anyone with eyes can see large amounts of material being expelled laterally, and even diagonally up, at high velocity. It is easy enough to measure the velocity, but it is difficult to know what the mass was, except we can measure the mass of the material that ended up on the ground outside of the perimeter, some at great distance.

But you don't want to admit any of that, and because the flaws in your argument are so obvious, you don't want to talk about it, trying to change the subject. You want everyone to instead imagine that 90% of the mass was trapped somehow, which means only 1/10 of 1% leaked out at each floor, on average. And the remaining 90% first fell straight down, and then bounced leaving maybe 10-20%. Oh, did it bounce before or after the crush-up phase?

No, you are right, I don't understand how your conspiracy theory works. How does it explain what we saw in the videos or at ground zero.

One more thing relating to the path of least resistance. Before the 'collapse' of the south tower, the upper floors were tilting up to 23 degrees, a high degree of asymmetry. And in that case, while the upper floors where still holding together, the path of least resistance would have been to continue tilting, as long as there was no resistance to doing so. The only force resisting the rotation was the side of the floor beneath the leading edge. If floor resists collapsing, then the rotation might stop and we are done. However, it is MUCH more likely that the floor on that side would collapse, and then the rotation would continue even more easily, and eventually the center of mass would be over the edge of the building, and the upper block of floors would find the path which has no building below it.

So then you say, ah ha, the initial rotation around the center of mass is countered by a lateral force against the floor, and that somehow causes the other side to give way, commencing the vertical collapse. But the tilting we saw was *not* a rotation around the center of mass, which would have been about half way up. Rather, the center of rotation was much closer to the impact area, and so the lateral force on the floor was tiny compared to the vertical force, and the rotational force at the top of the tower.

To understand where the center of rotation was, please read the discussion at:
http://911evidencebase.16.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=7...

Now, this detailed explanation should make it abundantly clear to anyone paying attention. You got some 'splaynin to do.

If it is still not clear enough for you, I can draw some pictures. Would the math really help or just make it more confusing?

[William Seger]

101. What are you asking?

The "detailed explanation should make" WHAT "abundantly clear?" And what is it that you think I need to explain?

What I said was that the tilting top was TRYING to rotate around it's center of mass. This is a fact of physics. What I said was that the center of mass moved laterally by pushing against the building below. This is another fact of physics. What I said was that this lateral force on those columns contributed to the collapse of those columns. This is a fact of structural mechanics; bent columns cannot carry as much load.

ALL of these facts are supported by the video frames in the article you linked to! (The video it refers to is gone, but I've seen it before.) Additionally, although those frames don't show it, what I said was that the angular momentum of the rotation was lost once the entire top started down because the top was plowing through the building below, not rotating freely. That should be easy to see if you look at the collision vectors involved, and I don't see anything in that article or from you to refute that contention.

The article simply tries to figure out where the center of rotation was, which is not at all a simple problem because neither the top nor the bottom were perfectly rigid, and the structural support situation was constantly changing as the structure was destroying itself. With all the factors involved, I don't believe the motion of the top can really be fully analyzed and understood with anything short of a finite element analysis. However, I don't personally see any need to go to that level of detail, since the fundamental actions and reactions of the tilting are easy to understand, and they are not really relevant to whether or not a global collapse of the structure should be expected. The article seems to be trying to imply that the motion of the top somehow violated what the author expected to happen, but I fail to see how what the author expected is of any great significance. Anyone who would like to claim that the motion of the top cannot be explained by a natural collapse would have to do a hell of a lot more work on the problem than that article does, and it's NOT up to me or anyone else to DISPROVE such a vaguely stated and poorly argued hypothesis.

In short, once again, I have no idea WTF you are getting at. If you're trying to make a point, you're going to have to make it clearly enough that I can understand what it IS before I can respond.

[greyl]

25. Attacking an idea is not ad hominem at all.

Your post had plenty of ad hominem, though. The post that ironically began with "ad hominem attacks will get you nowhere".

You seem to be fairly new to this subject.

Compare what you've seen at CT sites with the information here: www.911myths.com & www.freewebs.com/911guide/index.htm for starters.

[dlaliberte]

27. "your pod is showing"

You should have seen my deleted response. I do tend to respond to ad hominem attacks with more of the same, holding up a mirror so people can hopefully see what they are doing. I stand by my statement that the response to my posting was rather "low level". You've added very little.

I have been following the 9/11 news ever since watching it live, keeping an open mind but always suspecting, as a large percentage of people do, that the official story didn't sound right. So I am not new to the subject. However, it was just after Obama was elected that I finally got it. For me, it was the weight of the evidence, and primarily the impossibly fast near-free-fall descent. There is no question that 9/11 was an inside job now.

I'll review the sites you referenced, but I have to say, I have been very unimpressed with the debunkers arguments, which are weak, selective, and proven incorrect in many cases. Meanwhile, the controlled demolition argument only grows stronger as all evidence points toward that as the only reasonable explanation.

[Bolo Boffin]

29. "holding up a mirror so people can hopefully see what they are doing."

How virtuous of you! Your ad hominems aren't like ours because you're only doing it for our own good. That's just special to know.

[MrMickeysMom]

57. Did you get the watering can I sent for Christmas?

You need it.

[Bolo Boffin]

58. Please stop these silly games. n/t

[AZCat]

59. We mostly xeriscape around here.

It being the desert and all. Just recently the City of Tucson decided to begin requiring rainwater harvesting for new commercial development - something like 50% of the water used for landscaping has to come from it.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

11. Thank you ...!!

[defendandprotect]

10. Now owned by Clear Channel -- and all truth telling destroyed ---

[aldo]

30. Accessory after the fact to mass murder!

You mean the government/MIC propaganda channel. I won't hold my breath. These propagandists should realize they could be held liable for accessory after the fact for mass murder and treason.

[Bolo Boffin]

33. What in hades is going on here?

All the sudden we've got pod people, TV fakery people, pod people QUOTING TV Fakery people, and now the CIT "All our witnesses saw the plane crash into the Pentagon" team of failed Pentagon flyover shows up fulminating about holding the History Channel accountable for mass murder and treason.

Who moved the rock?

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wildbilln864]

74. The fucking History channel had...

John Huchison(siq) on last night and called him a theoretical physicist or some bullshit! Fuck the History channel propaganda bullshit!

[Realityhack]

98. This may be the first time I agree with you.

Though not everything on it is propaganda the history channel is ripe with it and your example is perfect.